Here we see many many people making huge leaps and bounds in understanding how our universe works, but few, if any, truly understand why. We have a theory that is very accurate that was derived using experimental data. The discovery of this theory happened a bit backwards. Scientists didn't come up with an equation and a theory and then do experiments to prove that theory, they did experiments and came up with an equation and a theory to explain the results.
Many scientists have approached science from a religious stand point. Einstein, for instance, approached everything as a discovery into one more way that God made the universe work, as shown by the viewpoint quoted above. This trend has seemed to change over time. Now scientists try to use science to prove why God doesn't exist, the same way they try to use evolution to discredit the Creation. Many people in society also have this view point. It's as if gaining more knowledge as to how things work is suddenly proof or evidence that no one designed the intricate fabric upon which our Universe runs.
Allow me to delve further and show you some of the intricacies we fail to notice in everyday life. There are books written on these topics (as I'm reading one right now), so my brief paragraphs will fail to encapsulate much of the complexity, but I'll try to explain the basics.
General Relativity
This theory, in its most simply form, simply explains how large objects interact with space and time. The entire theory revolves around the constancy of the speed of light. Fact: no matter how fast you go, you will never "catch up" to a beam of light. You can throw a baseball forward and by running quickly in the direction it was thrown keep up with it. This same concept is not true for light. No matter how fast you are moving, when you measure the speed of light it will always be ~670 million miles per hour.
To further expand on this. If you are moving 500 million miles per hour, point a flashlight in front of you and turn it on, and measure the speed it travels forward from your moving platform, it will still be moving at ~670 million miles per hour, not the ~170 million miles per hour one might suspect. Someone standing on the ground can also measure the speed of that light beam. Can you guess their result? ~670 million miles per hour, not ~1.17 billion miles per hour. It is exactly the same for both people observing the light. What a conundrum of a paradox.
To understand fully what is going on, we need to introduce a new concept spacetime. We want to meet a friend somewhere, so we tell them where we want to meet them (the location in space) and when we want to meet them (the location in time). We normally view the location and the time as two separate entities, but they are one. You exist at a current point in space and a point in time: spacetime.
Now, imagine you are walking at a constant speed from one end of a giant patio to the other end. If you walk straight across the patio, the trip to the other side will take less time than if you were to walk across at an angle. We were always walking at the same speed (distance covered in a given amount of time), but it took longer when we walked at an angle. Now let me redefine the terms a little. The patio is spacetime and, according to relativity, we always travel through space time at a constant speed: that of light (our walking speed). The journey from side A to side B of the patio signifies our experience in spacetime. Our deviation from a straight line represents our speed through 3D space. The total time to cross the patio represents just that: time.3
Einstein made theory states, as mentioned above, that we always journey through spacetime at a constant rate: the speed of light. If we increase the speed at which we are traveling through 3D space (walking at an angle) our speed through time, our 4th dimension, slows (the total time it takes to cross the patio). Why does this happen? Because of mass.
Einstein stated that as an object moves faster its mass increases. He also showed that mass warps the fabric of space time (much the same way a marble place on a stretched bed sheet makes a dimple in the sheet). This warping of space time causes time to pass more slowly. So as we move faster and faster through space, we warp the fabric of spacetime, and cause time to slow.
Quantum Mechanics
Scientists discovered that light particles (photons) had the properties of a wave. It was formerly thought that they were particles. After making this discovery, scientists also found that electrons and other minuscule molecules had these same properties. They found that energy transferred from molecule to molecule relied, not on the density of the molecule that were interacting one with another but based on the wavelength of the particle. Why? Because of energy. A shorter wavelength has more energy than longer wavelength.
When scientists tried to pin point these particles so that they could be observed, they ran into a problem: the particles weren't always where the scientists thought they should be. The theory was then developed to explain the probability that a particle will be at any given point in time. The theory essentially states that the particles act in an almost random pattern and we can only guess where they are going to be.
I don't really understand it very well, and I did a lot of summarizing in the first paragraphs, so I'm just going to leave it at that basic explanation for explaining how the smallest particles in our Universe act.
The Issue
These two theories clash with each other. You can use them alone, but if you try to combine them (for black holes, for instance), the theories crumple apart. Einstein spent his last years in life searching for a unified theory, but was unsuccessful. Scientists are in the process of developing what is being called "String Theory". It is a theory that is meant to be able to be used both for explaining why small particles move the way they do, but still be able to handle the effects that large masses have upon the fabric of spacetime. I know even less about this theory than I do quantum mechanics, so I will simply leave it here as what scientists are trying to use to find the universal equation.
Guess What
But, guess what? We've had the answer since December of 1832. It tells us why and how. The only problem is that it doesn't give us equations.
"...This is the light of Christ. As also he is in the sun, and the light of the sun, and the power thereof by which it was made. As also he is in the moon, and is the light of the moon, and the power thereof by which it was made; As also the light of the stars, and the power thereof by which they were made; And the earth also, and the power thereof, even the earth upon which you stand. And the light which shineth, which giveth you light, is through him who enlighteneth your eyes, which is the same light that quickeneth your understandings; Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space-- The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things."4Why and how: Because God said so, that's why!
As you know from reading my evolution and creation posts, I hate that answer. I don't consider it a solution. What the references we see above explain, though, is that there is a law that governs all things. There is a unified law of physics that is the basis upon which everything is founded. We haven't found it yet, but it is out there.
Here's what I wonder, though. If these scientists who are trying to prove that God doesn't exist by figuring out how everything works (because that somehow proves it, just because we know everything), were willing to step back and factor God into the equation of everything if they would actually be able to find the solution to the problems of the Universe.
Also, never forget, the answer to the life, the universe, and everything is 42. Google even says so: http://www.google.com/search?q=the+answer+to+life,+the+universe,+and+everything
Footnotes:
1. The Elegant Universe. Brian Greene. pp 107 back
2. The Elegant Universe. Brian Greene. pp 108 back
3. Ok, so this explanation was a little obscure, but it's the best I can do in such a little confined space. I recommend reading on it in more detail. A good explanation is in The Elegant Universe on pages 34-41. back
4. Doctrine & Covenants. Section 88, verse 7-13. back
